Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Neutralization of slow helium ions scattered from single crystalline aluminum and tantalum surfaces and their oxides

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Oxygen exposure changes how strongly helium ions are neutralized at Al and Ta surfaces, beyond what coverage alone predicts.

desk verdict Useful LEIS data on matrix effects in oxidized Al and Ta, but the Ta conclusion over-reads its own fits by ignoring the energy-dependent information depth the authors themselves invoke. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01629 v1 pith:JYN6NHCN submitted 2019-08-05 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.atom-ph

Barbara Bruckner , Peter Bauer , Daniel Primetzhofer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.atom-ph
keywords lowenergyionscatteringyieldchargeexchangeneutralizationoxygenexposureAl(111)Ta(111)matrixeffect
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the drop in He+ ion yield from Al(111) and Ta(111) during oxygen exposure is not just a geometric coverage effect: the backscattered ion fraction itself changes when the metal becomes an oxide. For Al the reduction is a nearly energy-independent factor of about four, so the neutralization probability has the same velocity scaling in metal and oxide. For Ta the ion-yield-versus-energy curve has a steeper slope in the oxide than in the metal, meaning the neutralization efficiency depends on both energy and chemical state. These findings matter because low-energy ion scattering is used to quantify surface compositions, and they imply that oxide or partially oxidized surfaces need chemical-matrix corrections that standard coverage-based analysis omits.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing quantity is the normalized ion yield $A_i^+ = j\,c_i\,P_i^+$, proportional to the product of surface coverage $c_i$ and ion fraction $P_i^+$, with $j$ a constant setup factor. The authors compare $A_i^+$ for clean metal and oxide at fixed coverage assumptions and fit the velocity dependence with the Auger-neutralization form $P^+ = \exp(-v_c/v_\perp)$, extracting characteristic velocities $v_c$. The $v_c$ values carry the argument: a change in $v_c$ between metal and oxide proves that neutralization efficiency itself changes, while a nearly unchanged $v_c$ with a constant offset isolates an energy-independent matrix effect. Supporting evidence is the opposing peak-energy shifts (metal peaks shift down 5–8 eV, O peaks do not shift or shift up), which place O atoms in front of the outermost metal layer and rule out charging.

What would settle it

Measure the neutral fraction of He backscattered from clean and oxygen-saturated Al(111) and Ta(111) using a time-of-flight detector that records both ions and neutrals at the same scattering angle and energies, or compute the yield with an ab initio charge-exchange simulation for the known O/Al(111) geometry; if the ion fraction for Al in the oxide equals that of the metal, and for Ta the oxide data fall on the metal curve after density scaling, the claimed chemical-state-dependent neutralization would be disproved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using normalized ion yields $A_i^+ = Y_i^+/(N_0 (d\sigma/d\Omega)_i \eta_i^+ E d\Omega) = j c_i P_i^+$, the authors compare helium backscattered from clean and oxygen-exposed Al(111) and Ta(111) over primary energies 0.65–3 keV. They find that the Al yield in a saturated oxide is about $0.23$–$0.26$ of the clean-metal yield, whereas stoichiometric Al$_2$O$_3$ should contain only roughly 32% fewer Al atoms per area; likewise Ta data fall below the coverage-only prediction. Since the measured characteristic velocity for Al changes only slightly ($2.44\times10^5$ m/s in the metal, $2.55\times10^5$ m/s in the oxide), the Al matrix effect is an energy-independent scale factor, whereas Ta changes from $2.25\times10^5$ m/s to $3.13\times10^5$ m/s, an energy-dependent matrix effect. The oxygen signal in both systems shows a much weaker velocity dependence ($v_c$ of about $2.5$–$4.4\times10^4$ m/s), indicating that O neutralization is largely independent of the matrix. The conclusion is that LEIS quantification on these oxidized surfaces requires corrections for chemical structure, and for Ta for beam energy as well.

Load-bearing premise

The argument that the yield drop reflects changed neutralization rather than fewer visible metal atoms assumes the saturated oxide has the stoichiometric Al$_2$O$_3$ or Ta$_2$O$_5$ composition with oxygen sitting just above the metal layer, so that the metal atom density in the analyzed region is known; if the effective metal-atom density is actually lower than this model, the size of the inferred matrix effect is overestimated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LEIS quantification of Al in oxidized Al requires a matrix correction of roughly a factor of four in the saturated oxide, constant across the measured energy range.
  • For Ta in Ta$_2$O$_5$, a single energy-independent sensitivity factor is insufficient: the matrix correction varies with primary energy because $v_c$ changes from $2.25\times10^5$ to $3.13\times10^5$ m/s.
  • Oxygen yields in these oxides scale very weakly with energy, so O can be quantified with an almost energy-independent calibration, unlike most metals.
  • In the measured regime, normalized yields continue to follow a single exponential in $1/v_\perp$ even though both Auger and resonant processes contribute, so the simple $v_c$ parametrization remains usable for corrections.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the chemical-state matrix effect is general, then LEIS quantification of any metal whose surface is partially oxidized, including native oxides, will require calibrating sensitivity factors separately for metal and oxide regions rather than assuming linear coverage scaling.
  • The roughly comparable O velocities in Al and Ta oxides suggest that oxygen neutralization is controlled by the common O anion electronic structure; measuring He+ neutralization on a third oxide, for example MgO or SiO$_2$, would test whether $v_{c,\mathrm{O}}$ is a material-independent fingerprint.
  • A direct test separating coverage from neutralization would be to measure the same oxidation series with a time-of-flight detector that collects neutrals as well as ions; if the neutral fraction is unchanged by oxidation, the claimed electronic matrix effect would need to be reinterpreted as a geometric or trajectory effect.
  • For the open bcc(111) Ta surface, sub-surface contributions depend on primary energy and complicate exposure curves; an angle-resolved or low-energy measurement that isolates the first monolayer could separate the information-depth effect from the true matrix effect.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports low-energy ion scattering (LEIS) measurements of He+ ions scattered from clean and oxygen-exposed Al(111) and Ta(111) surfaces at primary energies between 0.65 and 3 keV. The authors normalize the measured ion yields by the differential scattering cross section and experimental factors (Eq. 3) and fit the resulting A_i^+ values versus inverse perpendicular velocity to the Hagstrum exponential form to extract characteristic velocities vc. For Al(111), the yield reduction upon oxidation is found to be approximately energy independent, with vc for Al in the oxide consistent within uncertainty with vc for the clean metal, but with an overall lower absolute yield than expected from a stoichiometric Al2O3 surface. For Ta(111), the apparent vc is larger in the oxidized surface than in the clean metal (3.13e5 vs. 2.25e5 m/s), and the authors conclude that the different energy scaling 'can only be explained with neutralization efficiencies depending on both energy and surface composition.' Oxygen signals in both systems show only a weak energy dependence. The paper also reports opposing peak shifts for the metal and oxygen signals, which they interpret as evidence against charging and in favor of oxygen sitting in front of the first metal layer.

Significance. If established, the central claim would be practically important: quantitative LEIS on oxidized metal surfaces would require matrix-effect corrections that depend on the chemical state and, for Ta, on the primary beam energy. The experimental dataset is valuable: it uses well-defined single-crystal surfaces, covers several primary energies, includes normalization by scattering cross sections and transmission, and fits the data with explicit uncertainties on the extracted vc values. The authors also honestly discuss the information-depth limitations for the open Ta(111) surface. However, the Ta-specific claim is currently not established because the analysis in Fig. 7 assumes a fixed effective Ta atom density at all primary energies, while the paper's own exposure-curve analysis demonstrates that this density is energy dependent. The Al claim, by contrast, is robust as an observation of an energy-independent matrix effect, but the paper overreaches in attributing it specifically to a change in neutralization efficiency rather than to geometric shadowing or trajectory effects from the oxygen overlayer.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Fig. 7] The claim that the different energy scaling between metallic and oxidized Ta 'can only be explained with neutralization efficiencies depending on both energy and surface composition' is not supported by the analysis because the derivation assumes a fixed effective Ta atom density in the oxide at all primary energies. The paper itself states in §3.3 that for the open bcc Ta(111) surface, 'sub-surface signals are expected to contribute' and that 'the intensity of the ion yields of Ta at the final oxygen coverage differs between the investigated primary energies,' attributing this to energy-dependent information depth. If c_eff,Ta increases with primary energy because deeper, less-oxidized layers contribute, then the apparent slope in Fig. 7 is steepened in exactly the direction of a larger vc, meaning the observed vc,Ta^oxide = 3.13e5 m/s versus vc,Ta^metal = 2.25e5 m/s may reflect an energy-dependent effective density rather than a change in neutralization efficiency. The red dashed baseline in Fig. 7 assumes a stoichiometric Ta2O5 density for all energies and does not correct for this confound.
  2. [§3.2, Fig. 4] The Al conclusion that the yield reduction upon oxidation 'requires the neutralization efficiency to be dependent on the chemical structure' is too strong given the acknowledged difficulty of separating coverage, trajectory, and neutralization effects. For Al, the extracted vc values for the metal and oxide agree within uncertainties (2.44e5 ± 1.25e4 versus 2.55e5 ± 1.05e4 m/s), so the energy dependence of neutralization is unchanged; the observed effect is a constant scaling factor. The paper's own discussion in §3.2, including the statement that the oxidized-surface geometry 'would be a matrix effect, but at the same time exemplifies the difficulties associated with both terms, surface concentration and ion fraction, hampering their separation,' concedes that this factor could be geometric (e.g., shadowing/blocking by the oxygen overlayer cited in refs [24–27]) rather than electronic. The data establish a matrix effect but not specifically a change in neutralization efficiency.
  3. [§3.2 and §3.3, Figs. 4 and 7] The central fits assume the single-exponential scaling of Eq. (1) over the entire energy range, while the paper notes in §3.1 and §3.3 that both Auger and resonant processes contribute in this regime and that re-ionized sub-surface contributions can occur for E > Eth. Because the extracted vc values are the primary evidence for the metal/oxide comparison, the validity of Eq. (1) in this mixed regime should be addressed quantitatively, particularly for Ta where the information depth varies with energy. Without such an assessment, the reported vc differences could be influenced by a regime change rather than by a pure neutralization-efficiency change.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption reads 'normalized to the number of primary ions as well as the setup specific parameters d (detection and the energy dependent transmission efficiency)'; this should presumably be 'dΩ' (the detector solid angle) and the sentence should be completed.
  2. [§3.3, O signal on Ta] The reported characteristic velocity for oxygen on Ta, vc = (2.5e4 ± 1.3e4) m/s, has a relative uncertainty of about 50%; the statement that the O signal shows a 'weak energy dependency' should be accompanied by a quantitative confidence bound or a statement of what upper limit on vc is consistent with the data.
  3. [Fig. 7 caption] The red dashed line is described as indicating the ion yield 'if no matrix effects occur'; the caption should explicitly state that this line assumes a fixed stoichiometric Ta2O5 surface density at all primary energies, as that assumption is load-bearing for the comparison.
  4. [§3.2, first paragraph] The phrase 'the effective way of ions in regions with significant electron density' should be 'the effective path of ions' or similar; this is likely a typographical error.
  5. [§3.1] The statement that the two-Gaussian fit and the integral over the Al peak differ by less than 5% is useful, but it would be helpful to state explicitly whether this uncertainty is propagated into the A_i^+ values and the vc fits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: measured ion-yield ratios are compared with an independent stoichiometry-based null line; the Ta energy-scaling inference is confounded by information-depth effects but is not circular.

full rationale

The central claims are derived from directly measured normalized ion yields A_i^+ = j c_i P_i^+ (Eq. 3), not from fitting a parameter and then predicting that same parameter. The red dashed baselines in Figs. 4 and 7 are constructed as null hypotheses from literature stoichiometry and the separately measured metal v_c, so the observed deviations are independent comparisons rather than definitions. The v_c values for the oxides are fits to the data being interpreted, not predictions recycled from the inputs. Self-citations ([15], [16], and [6]) are prior experimental studies by the same group; they support side assumptions about subsurface contributions and re-ionization backgrounds, but the main matrix-effect comparisons are anchored in the present measurements, so these citations are not load-bearing circularity. The paper is also explicit about the coverage/neutralization ambiguity: Section 3.2 states that the O-overlayer geometry 'would be a matrix effect, but at the same time exemplifies the difficulties associated with both terms, surface concentration and ion fraction, hampering their separation.' For Ta, the claim that different energy scaling 'can only be explained with neutralization efficiencies depending on both energy and surface composition' is overstated given the paper's own observation that the open bcc(111) surface produces energy-dependent subsurface contributions and energy-dependent final Ta yields; however, this is a confounding/interpretation risk, not a case where the result is equivalent to its input by construction. No step in the derivation reduces to a self-citation chain or to a definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The six characteristic velocities are fitted to the measured ion yields and are the quantitative basis for the energy-dependence claims. The Al and Ta matrix-effect conclusions also depend on literature assumptions: stoichiometric Al2O3/Ta2O5, O height above Al(111) (refs [24-27]), minor subsurface contributions (refs [15,16]), and single-exponential scaling with both Auger and resonant processes active.

free parameters (6)
  • v_c_Al_metal = (2.44e5 +/- 1.25e4) m/s
    Single-exponential fit of normalized Al yield vs inverse perpendicular velocity on clean Al(111), Fig. 4. Used as the reference neutralization velocity.
  • v_c_Al_oxide = (2.55e5 +/- 1.05e4) m/s
    Single-exponential fit of normalized Al yield vs inverse perpendicular velocity on oxidized Al(111), Fig. 4. Compared to metal value to test matrix effects.
  • v_c_O_Al = (4.4e4 +/- 8.2e3) m/s
    Single-exponential fit of normalized O yield vs inverse perpendicular velocity from oxidized Al(111), Fig. 4. Supports the claim of weak energy dependence of the O signal.
  • v_c_Ta_metal = (2.25e5 +/- 9.6e3) m/s
    Single-exponential fit of normalized Ta yield vs inverse perpendicular velocity on clean Ta(111), Fig. 7. Baseline for the metal.
  • v_c_Ta_oxide = (3.13e5 +/- 1.2e4) m/s
    Single-exponential fit of normalized Ta yield vs inverse perpendicular velocity on oxidized Ta(111), Fig. 7. Different from metal value, supporting an energy-dependent matrix effect.
  • v_c_O_Ta = (2.5e4 +/- 1.3e4) m/s
    Single-exponential fit of normalized O yield vs inverse perpendicular velocity from oxidized Ta(111), Fig. 7. Shows very weak energy dependence, consistent with the O result on Al.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The total ion yield follows the Auger-type exponential scaling P+ = exp(-v_c/v_perp) even though both Auger and resonant processes contribute in the investigated energy range.
    Invoked when fitting all A_i^+ data in Figs. 4 and 7. The paper notes the mixture of processes but still applies a single exponential.
  • domain assumption The surface oxide formed after saturation is stoichiometric Al2O3 (for Al) and Ta2O5 (for Ta), and the metal atom areal density in the oxide is that of the stoichiometric compound.
    Used to construct the red dashed reference lines in Figs. 4 and 7, and to estimate the expected yield reduction from coverage alone.
  • domain assumption Oxygen atoms sit 0.58-0.7 Å above the outermost Al(111) layer, as reported in refs [24-27], so the O overlayer changes the ion trajectory and neutralization path.
    Used in Section 3.2 to interpret peak shifts and to argue that the yield drop is a matrix effect rather than pure coverage.
  • domain assumption Subsurface contributions to the Al ion yield are minor in the employed energy range for the closed-packed Al(111) surface, as concluded in ref [15].
    Used in Section 3.2 to attribute the constant yield ratio between metal and oxide to a change in ion fraction rather than information depth.
  • domain assumption The ZBL universal potential with no screening length correction gives adequate differential scattering cross sections for the normalization in Eq. 3.
    Stated in Section 2; uncertainties here affect absolute values of A_i^+ but not the exponential scaling or ratios.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutralization of slow helium ions scattered from single crystalline aluminum and tantalum surfaces and their oxides." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JYN6NHCN

@misc{pith2026190801629,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutralization of slow helium ions scattered from single crystalline aluminum and tantalum surfaces and their oxides},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JYN6NHCN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01629}
}
abstract

We investigated the impact of surface oxygen on the ion yield for He$^+$ ions scattered from different single crystalline surfaces in low-energy ion scattering. Initially clean Al(111) and Ta(111) were exposed to molecular oxygen and ion spectra for different oxidation stages and different primary energies were recorded. A comparison of ion yields normalized to the differential scattering cross section as well as experimental factors allows obtaining information about the influence of oxygen on charge exchange processes. The decrease in the ion yield of both metals with exposure cannot be explained by different surface coverages exclusively, but requires the neutralization efficiency to be dependent on the chemical structure of the surface. For Ta, additionally, a different energy dependency of the ion yield obtained in the metal and oxide occurs. The ion yield for O shows in both surfaces a significantly weaker energy dependency than the investigated metals.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Brune, J

    H. Brune, J. Wintterlin, J. Trost, G. Ertl, J. Wiechers, R.J. Behm, Interaction of oxygen with Al(111) studied by scanning tunneling microscopy, J. Chem. Phys. 99 (1993) 2128 –2148. doi:10.1063/1.465278

    work page doi:10.1063/1.465278 1993

  2. [2]

    N. Cai, G. Zhou, K. Müller, D.E. Starr, Tuning the Limiting Thickness of a Thin Oxide Layer on Al(111) with Oxygen Gas Pressure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 035502. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.035502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.035502 2011

  3. [3]

    M. Riva, M. Kubicek, X. Hao, G. Franceschi, S. Gerhold, M. Schmid, H. Hutter, J. Fleig, C. Franchini, B. Yildiz, U. Diebold, Influence of surface atomic structure demonstrated on oxygen incorporation mechanis m at a model perovskite oxide, Nat. Commun. 9 (2018) 3710. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-05685-5

    doi:10.1038/s41467-018-05685-5 2018

  4. [4]

    Kompio, A

    P.G.W.A. Kompio, A. Brückner, F. Hipler, O. Manoylova, G. Auer, G. Mestl, W. Grünert, V2O5- WO3/TiO2 catalysts under thermal stress: Responses of structure and ca talytic behavior in the selective catalytic reduction of NO by NH 3, Appl. Catal. B. 217 (2017) 365 –377. doi:10.1016/J.APCATB.2017.06.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apcatb.2017.06.006 2017

  5. [5]

    Werner, J.W

    M. Werner, J.W. Roberts, R.J. Potter, K. Dawson, P.R. Chalker, Elucidation of ALD MgZnO deposition processes using low energy ion scattering, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A. 36 (2018) 02D406. doi:10.1116/1.5015958

    work page doi:10.1116/1.5015958 2018

  6. [6]

    Bruckner, P

    B. Bruckner, P. Bauer, D. Primetzhofer, The impact of surface oxidation on energy spectra of keV ions scattered from transition metals, Appl. Surf. Sci. 479 ( 2019) 1287 –1292. doi:10.1016/J.APSUSC.2018.12.210

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2018.12.210 2019

  7. [7]

    Kolasinski, J.A

    R.D. Kolasinski, J.A. Whaley, D.K. Ward, Application of multi-angle scattering maps to stepped surfaces, Surf. Sci. 677 (2018) 176–185. doi:10.1016/J.SUSC.2018.07.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.susc.2018.07.007 2018

  8. [8]

    Primetzhofer, M

    D. Primetzhofer, M. Spitz, S.N. Markin, E. Taglauer, P. Bauer, Influence of surface structure and composition on neutralization of 4He+ ions scattered from noble metals and alloy surfaces, Phys. Rev. B. 80 (2009) 125425. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.80.125425

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.80.125425 2009

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Gainullin, Towards quantitative LEIS with alkali metal ions, Surf

    I.K. Gainullin, Towards quantitative LEIS with alkali metal ions, Surf. Sci. 677 (2018) 324–332. doi:10.1016/J.SUSC.2018.08.007

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    T. Li, J.A. Yarmoff, Intercalation and desorption of oxygen between graphene and Ru(0001) studied with helium ion scattering, Phys. Rev. B. 96 (20 17) 155441. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.96.155441

    doi

  3. [11]

    Brongersma, M

    H.H. Brongersma, M. Draxler, M. de Ridder, P. Bauer, Surface composition analysis by low - 17 energy ion scattering, Surf. Sci. Rep. 62 (2007) 63–109. doi:10.1016/j.surfrep.2006.12.002

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    Hagstrum, Theory of auger ejection of electrons from metals by ions, Phys

    H.D. Hagstrum, Theory of auger ejection of electrons from metals by ions, Phys. Rev. 96 (1954) 336–365. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.96.336

    1954 doi

  5. [13]

    Zameshin, A.E

    A.A. Zameshin, A.E. Yakshin, J.M. Sturm, H.H. Brongersma, F. Bijkerk, Double matrix effect in Low Energy Ion Scattering from La surfaces, Ap pl. Surf. Sci. 440 (2018) 570 –579. doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2018.01.174

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Kürnsteiner, R

    P. Kürnsteiner, R. Steinberger, D. Primetzhofer, D. Goebl, T. Wagner, Z. Druckmüllerova, P. Zeppenfeld, P. Bauer, Matrix effects in the neutralization of He ions at a metal surface containing oxygen, Surf. Sci. 609 (2013) 167–171. doi:10.1016/j.susc.2012.12.003

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    S. Rund, D. Primetzhofer, S.N. Markin, D. Goebl, P. Bauer, Charge exchange of He +-ions with aluminium surfaces, Nucl. Inst. Methods Phys. Res. B. 269 (2011) 1171 –1174. doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2010.11.049

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    Primetzhofer, M

    D. Primetzhofer, M. Spitz, E. Taglauer, P. Bauer, Resonant charge transfer in low -energy ion scattering: Information depth in the reionization regime, Surf. Sci. 605 (2011) 1913 –1917. doi:10.1016/j.susc.2011.07.006

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    Souda, M

    R. Souda, M. Aono, C. Oshima, S. Otani, Y. Ishizawa, Shadowing and focusing effects in the angular distributions of low -energy rare-gas ions scattered from solid surfaces, Surf. Sci. 179 (1987) 199–208. doi:10.1016/0039-6028(87)90130-0

    1987 doi

  10. [18]

    Markin, D

    S.N. Markin, D. Primetzhofer, P. Bauer, On the origin of the LEIS signal in TOF - and in ESA- LEIS, Nucl. Inst. Methods Phys. Res. B. 267 (2009) 634–637. doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2008.11.022

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    Matsunami, Y

    N. Matsunami, Y. Yamamura, Y. Itikawa, N. Itoh, Y. Kazumata, S. Miyagawa, K. Mori ta, R. Shimizu, H. Tawara, Energy dependence of the ion -induced sputtering yields of monatomic solids, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables. 31 (1984) 1–80. doi:10.1016/0092-640X(84)90016-0

    1984 doi

  12. [20]

    Ziegler, J.P

    J.F. Ziegler, J.P. Biersack, U. Littmark, The Stopping and Range of Io ns in Solids, Pergamon Press. (1985)

    1985

  13. [21]

    Draxler, R

    M. Draxler, R. Gruber, H.H. Brongersma, P. Bauer, Velocity Scaling of Ion Neutralization in Low Energy Ion Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 263201. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.263201

    2002 doi

  14. [22]

    J.M. Sanz, S. Hofma nn, Auger electron spectroscopy and X -ray photoelectron spectroscopy studies of the oxidation of polycrystalline tantalum and niobium at room temperature and low oxygen pressures, J. Less Common Met. 92 (1983) 317–327. doi:10.1016/0022-5088(83)90498- 8. 18

    1983 doi

  15. [23]

    van der Veen, F.J

    J.F. van der Veen, F.J. Himpsel, D.E. Eastman, Chemisorption -induced 4 f -core-electron binding-energy shifts for surface atoms of W(111), W(100), and Ta(111), Phys. Rev. B. 25 (1982) 7388–7397. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.25.7388

    1982 doi

  16. [24]

    Wouters, D.J

    E.R. Wouters, D.J. O’Conn or, J.F. van der Veen, P.M. Zagwijn, J. Vrijmoeth, W. Slijkerman, J.W.M. Frenken, The initial stages of the oxidation of Al(111). II, Surf. Sci. 296 (1993) 141 –

    1993

  17. [25]

    Kerkar, D

    M. Kerkar, D. Fisher, D.P. Woodruff, B. Cowie, Adsor ption site determination for oxygen on Al(111) using normal incidence standing X-ray wavefield absorption, Surf. Sci. 271 (1992) 45–

    1992

  18. [26]

    Jacobsen, B

    J. Jacobsen, B. Hammer, K.W. Jacobsen, J.K. No/rskov, Electronic structure, total energies, and STM images of clean and oxygen -covered Al(111), Phys. Rev. B. 52 (1995) 14954 –14962. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.52.14954

    1995 doi

  19. [27]

    Kiejna, B.I

    A. Kiejna, B.I. Lundqvist, First -principles study of surface and subsurface O structures at Al(111), Phys. Rev. B. 63 (2001) 085405. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.63.085405

    2001 doi

  20. [28]

    Primetzhofer, D

    D. Primetzhofer, D. Goebl, P. Bauer, Local vs. non -local energy loss of low energy ions: Influence of charge exchange processes in close collisions, Nucl. Inst. Methods Phys. Res. B. 317 (2013) 8–12. doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2012.12.091

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    Rusch, R.L

    T.W. Rusch, R.L. Erickson, Energy dependence of scattered ion yields in ISS, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. 13 (1976) 374–377. doi:10.1116/1.568892

    1976 doi

  22. [30]

    Arikawa, O

    T. Arikawa, O. Kishimoto, W. Aoba, Ion Scattering Spectroscopy Experiment in Collisions of He + Ions with Ta and W Targets, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 34 (1995) L1561 –L1563. doi:10.7567/JJAP.34.L1561

    1995 doi

  23. [31]

    Mikhailov, L.C.A

    S.N. Mikhailov, L.C.A. van den Oetelaar, H.H. Brongersma, Strong matrix effect in low-energy He+ ion scattering from carbon, Nucl. Ins t. Methods Phys. Res. B. (1994). doi:10.1016/0168 - 583X(94)95689-8

    1994 doi

  24. [32]

    D. Roth, B. Bruckner, G. Undeutsch, V. Paneta, A.I. Mardare, C.L. McGahan, M. Dosmailov, J.I. Juaristi, M. Alducin, J.D. Pedarnig, R.F. Haglund, D. Primetzhofer, P. Bauer, Electronic Stopping of Slow Protons in Oxides: Scaling Properties, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 163401. do...

    2017 doi

  25. [56]

    doi:10.1016/0039-6028(92)90860-9

    doi

  26. [148]

    doi:10.1016/0039-6028(93)91142-C

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.